Academic Publishing Wiki
Advertisement

Author control of articles[]

Thank you, much of that is productive discussion. One of my primary concerns (and one that I see was touched on on the Meatball Wiki) was the matter of the "author" of the content. My current thinking is that the initial author should have the final say on the content, and that other users will simply take the role of editors, making small changes and suggestions for the original author without making significant changes of their own. Unless, of course, the original author wishes to adopt another so as to make the article a collaboration. This author-empowered approach makes more sense to me than simply allowing everyone to conduct massive changes (which would in most cases I believe simply dilute its original purpose and leave it very disjointed at its end). Reading the discussions it appears that in that regard we hold some disagreement. If that is so I would be happy to entertain the discussion further.Sarge Baldy 20:48, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree that authors should retain control of the original copy of their articles. It is always possible for someone else to make their own copy of an article and start having their own way with it. It seems like the person who first posts an article should be designated the "first author". A "first author" should be able to designate other wiki users as additional authors (co-authors) who can edit the original copy of the article. Anyone not so designated by the first author would only be able to comment on the original article. I'm just winging it here. If you see a better way to do something, just fix it. I'm trying to set up Wiki Journal as an example of a joutnal and as a place for theoretical discussions of how to make wiki publishing work. --JWSchmidt 21:23, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

formatting[]

Note that I'm adopting Wikipedia-style formatting here (i.e. start headers at the == level) as per my own preference.Sarge Baldy 20:48, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

You probably noticed that I do not have an eye for style. You may have to flog me to get me to pay attention to proper formatting. --JWSchmidt 21:23, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Admins[]

I've also promoted you to a sysop. Sarge Baldy 20:48, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I have been running the Protoscience wikicity for about three months and have used the "delete" button a few times to remove useless pages. Hopefully that is all that will be needed here, too. --JWSchmidt 21:23, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

re: welcome[]

Welcome and thanks for the error correction, "the name name as the name" should win fame for the way it came to &$$%^&%J &$^FD......zzzzzzz. Its nice to have some company here. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's even quieter here than Wikibooks (which is where I found this place). If I can work out the best hierarchy to use I'm going to publish a History journal or two. Then again with the magic move tab I can fix it if I put it in the wrong place! Yay! :)
Do you plan to start a peer-reviewed history journal at en.wikibooks.org?
No I'm intending to start it here, as the goal of Wikibooks is clearly to produce book-length tracts rather than short articles (indeed short articles often find themselves culled). Actually I've already made a start on one, but I'm not quite sure how the multiple pages system works... Garrett 03:13, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

accessibility feedback[]

Well, I must say the process was harder than I thought. I've been editing Wikipedia/Wikibooks for many months, and yet I found the examples rather confusing. Goodness knows what someone new to wiki formatting would think.

I've put the page at The struggle for Greece: Marathon and Artemision, but some of the pages seem to indicate a short name should have been used. See what you think. Did I get it right after all? :)

I've got to go have dinner now. I'll dissect the flaws of the process and some possible solutions later tonight. Garrett 05:56, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the new journal you started ... I hope to see a really exciting article about "blablabla". I'm sorry the process of creating a new journal was painful. Hopefully we can fix the process so that it is more intuitive. --JWSchmidt 13:35, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
LOL! The process isn't bad, but it's not good either. I had started on a fix at New journal creator/Message so the user just clicks the links instead of copy-n-paste--but I can't use the blasted thing until MediaWiki 1.5 is installed. Gah.
Well at least I can fine-tune it until then. And I've just now thought of a way to require NO work at all except to click save and type the one description.
--now THAT's simple. You barely even need fingers. :)
Now I shall run off to do that, and other pre-1.5 workarounds (read: Commons image insertion) Garrett 13:43, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Scratch that, can't use &preload= until 1.5 either. Gah. Garrett 13:54, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Old article[]

  • Hey, Parr: do you remember the source of your essay that I responded to in this essay?
  • I have never knowingly thrown out anything I have written. I'll dig it up. I do know that these came from Philosophical Remarks from the transition period. Pages 81 to 104 deal with much of this. If you have some clues, like when I posted it, the first few lines, etc, it would be helpful

Garrett: Please forgive me that I did not comment immediately to your excellent commentary. I was not ignorilng you. This is just the kind of dialogue I look forward to, but I had another lapse in "meaning blindness". I was wondering how you had possesion of this writing and thought you were asking me to find the original. Also I didn't read your article closely. When the spell of "meaning blindness passed, I realized my appropriate response would be to answer as best I could your questions. That's what it all about. Right? I'll see of I can respond on the discussion of this pageto your essay.

Parr- essay This was written by me (John Schmidt) a couple of years ago after you sent me something to read. I was just wondering if you could figure out what you had sent me. It may have had "Present Experience" in the title. --JWSchmidt 16:36, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
John- Boy, did you have me puzzled!. Garrett picked up on the items most unfamiliar of Wittgenstein. Please, SIGN YOUR WORK. I fall into confusion without any help. It may be on a disce that survived 2 crashes. Meanwhile: 1) is this the right place for extended dialogues such as this? and 2)do you have any feedback on changes on what I say in the rest of he response [or anything else I've written?] Parrwitt.
Sorry about that. We should probably set up a new page for this discussion. I have to do some work, so I will not get to what you put on the "Talk" page right away. -JWS

New Author Instructions[]

Hi. Is there any reason for Template:New Author Instructions to remain protected? Angela (talk) 09:00, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

See Template talk:New Author Instructions for some discussion of this matter. The problem I was having was that the wiki software would by default allow the user to edit such templates even when the user was only trying to edit sections of a specific journal's page (example: Language Journal:Instructions for authors) that are specific for one journal. These templates like Template:New Author Instructions are NOT meant to be casually edited by the users of each specific journal, but users of each journal could (without wanting to or realizing that they were) find themselves editing the template by clicking on an edit button of a section of a page using the template. The other "solution" to this problem is to place __NOEDITSECTION__ in the template. I think this is what I did for all the other mult-section templates of this type. I left Template:New Author Instructions protected as an example of the other available "solution" to the problem and as an attempt to get some community discussion of this issue. --JWSchmidt 13:52, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Science Journals in Wiki Academic Publishing[]

The journals could be moved to wikiversity but where? I was thinking the place to put them is where they are with links across but maybe the whole things could be inside wikiversity. The two journals of interest are "Education in the Sciences" and "Interpretations in the Physical Sciences" and they are definitely university stuff but they are between chemistry, chemical engineering and physics. Any ideas how to do this... Thanks - MartinY 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes - I think it is a great idea to move it across. I understand there are transwiki procedures we must use and not just copy and delete so I may have to ask for help when the time comes..... Thanks - MartinY 13:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

But initially we can use your portal idea and see how it evolves with any new papers going to either with cross linking .... MartinY.

Promoting Academic Publishing Wiki[]

I have had some trouble trying to promote Academic Publishing Wiki and a new journal I created there called Amateur Astronomy. You can read about my efforts and obstacles on my Wikipedia discussion page.

Basically, I got into trouble after I linked from Wikipedia articles on "Astronomy" and "Amateur Astronomy" to Acadmeic Publishing Wiki and Amateur Astronomy because the articles said that "amateur astronomers can still make contributions to the science." Unfortunately, some Wiki users said I was spamming and then blocked me from editing.

I have stopped linking, but I think it would help Academic Publishing Wiki if users could link to it from Wikipedia where appropriate. It seems inconsistent to ban links to another Wiki community, especially when other Wikipedia links abound to less reliable sites.

I notice that the Academic Publishing Wiki has not grown very much since it was created in 2005, and so I suggest that you or another Academic Publishing Wiki administrator consider a change to the policy about linking from Wikipedia to other Wiki communities. Otherwise, I fear that Academic Publishing Wiki may fail like its predecessor from lack of exposure.

WVogelerWvogeler 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the wikipedia Amateur Astronomy discussion page. That editor seemed to me to be really high-handed in his deletions. I hope the Hamlet editor is more liberal, because I've added a link from there to my academia Motifs in Hamlet article. The policy that might be killing us is "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." It's a Catch-22 situation. New wikis need wikipedia links to survive, but the links are rejected because new wikis won't survive without the links. I suggested to one of the more friendly wikipedia editors (Siroxo) that links from wikipedia to academia.wikia are needed if for no other reason than deflecting "original research" contributions away from wikipedia. To paraphrase Emma Lazarus:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your original researchers yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me"

Ray Eston Smith Jr 17:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to Academic Publishing?[]

Is the Academic Publishing Wiki still active?

I see that the Amateur Astronomy pages, which I created, still work. But the Academic Publishing main page says only: "Good site."

What's up?

WVogelerWvogeler

Why is stuff about gravity coming out on the front of every science paper?[]

Hello - martinY here. It seems that there is a template putting stuff about gravity out on the front of other papers. I can't find where this has been added? Can you help? Thanks...... MartinY 08:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See for example K. Marinas' Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis. Perhaps the apple article is a part of the preliminary draft template. JCGonzales 23:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
For right now, I am commenting out the apple article to see if this makes a difference. JCGonzales 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Problem appears solved, and the apple author can recover his text on the template page. JCGonzales 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
(Original talk to martinY) I left a note on the author's discussion page describing the corruption to the preliminary draft template. It appears that his article was saved over the template, so that it does appear all over the place, on every page that uses the preliminary draft template. (Ex: Initial draft. Notice that his article follows immediately after the template sample is mentioned.) He may have reversed the commenting out, so that it again appears everywhere. I have assured him that his article is well known in Academia. JCGonzales 00:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Organizing and categorizing...[]

I hope I am not stepping on anybody's toes, but I've started to do templated startup pages for the Biology and Computer journals. Also, the categories seem to work now, and the submitted article categories now appear under their respective journal categories. This place has a lot of potential... JCGonzales 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideas on increasing academia wikia traffic[]

If there are problems stemming from a lack of traffic, we may have an interest in understanding an apparent lack of demand for what we have to offer, and then finding ways to create sufficient demand, so that traffic increases over an s-curve over time, if we come to the conclusion that geometric or even exponential traffic increases are desirable for academia.wikia.com's future.

Some possible ways to increase demand:

  • Selective requests to move/transwiki original research found at Wikipedia to the Academia Wikia. As articles are moved, their user/editors should develop an interest in becoming contributors here, especially in the role of first authors who have more control over their own content than on the Wikipedia. Unless those articles are already well-sourced, etc., they should be automatic candidates for preliminary draft templating.
  • Original research by us on the nature of the Wikipedia for inclusion in Academia's Wiki Journal. Some of this can and should be controversial, such as analyzing editor disputes on Wikipedia article pages. In that way, Academia Wikia may become invaluable to certain persons in Wikipedia dispute resolution.
  • Reviews of any existing online or print sources for inclusion in topical Academia journals. Hopefully this will address part of the lack of demand by non-Wikipedians for our content.

In support of these ideas, I have been working on an outline template (example on my user page) to encourage the starting of new articles in a pre-publication process here.

As it is now, many serious academics refuse to accept the Wikipedia as a citable source, and the Wikipedians appear to refuse to accept Academia Wikia as a reliable source as well, suggesting a hierarchy of disrespect. To get around that hierarchy, at least some parts of Academia Wikia must become authoritative as soon as possible, so that our online consumer base increases to generate more demand for what Academia Wikia can provide. This is what I mean by saying there is abundant potential in this place on the Internet. With greatly increased traffic, the reviewers and respect will come. JCGonzales 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A proper site for the Academic Publishing.[]

I was thinking to creat a site on the internet where people could publish inedit works done in a collaborative way. The publishing could be done as the present scientific methodology. I talked with a friend about it. Then searching on internet we found the "Academic Publishing Wiki". Congratulations for the efforts that have been made so far. We would like to give our contribution as well.

Actually, there are some points we would like to ask you:
1) The Academic Publishing Wiki would be well housed here at Wikia? Given the magnitude and responsibility of that propose, should it not be on his proper site?
2) How will the APW earn the desired status of respectability in the academic community?

Hope to hear soon from you,

I am fully available to cooperate.

200.207.182.94 22:13, March 6, 2011 (UTC)LANdePaula

Another option would be to develop a "wiki journal" at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 00:27, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement